Oct. 16
IRAQ:
Human rights groups concerned over Saddam trial
3 days before Saddam Hussein goes on trial for crimes against humanity,
human rights groups have raised profound concerns about the independence
of the court trying him and whether it meets international standards.
Among other issues, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have
expressed unease about limits on the ability of the accused to mount a
defense, the burden of proof, political sway over the court and use of the
death penalty.
Questions also surround the fact the Iraqi government has passed new laws
governing the court, but has not yet brought them into force. Those new
statutes could take effect in the next few days, or after the trial
begins, raising further doubts about the clarity of procedures.
Saddam and 7 others are due to appear in court on October 19 on charges of
premeditated murder in the deaths of more than 140 Shi'ite men from the
village of Dujail, north of Baghdad, following a failed attempt on the
then-president's life in 1982.
In an 18-page report on Sunday, New York-based Human Rights Watch
questioned trial preparations, including the amount of time the defense
had been given to study evidence and its access to witnesses, and said
proceedings might not be free or fair.
"We have grave concerns that the court will not provide the fair trial
guarantees required by international law," said Richard Dicker, director
of the group's international justice program.
"The proceedings must be fair and be seen to be fair, and that means
ensuring that the accused can vigorously defend themselves."
Amnesty International, in a report released earlier this year, laid out
similar concerns, and questioned if defendants were being granted their
full rights under international law.
"The statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal currently in place is not
consistent with international law," Amnesty said.
"Trials and further investigations should not proceed until the concerns
outlined ... have been adequately addressed."
Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are due to have observers in the courtroom
on October 19, although it is not clear if passes provided by U.S.
authorities for access to the fortified Green Zone compound, where the
court is, will be granted on time.
LIMITED ACCESS
When the trial gets under way, Saddam's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi,
is expected to challenge the legitimacy of the court, which under current
statutes was set up in December 2003 by U.S.-backed authorities during the
U.S. military occupation.
Over recent months Dulaimi has complained about a lack of access to his
client, inability to question witnesses already interviewed by the
investigating judge who built the case, and restrictions on support from
foreign lawyers.
He has also said that the 45 days allowed to prepare for the trial after
the investigator presented his evidence is insufficient, particularly in a
trial alleging crimes against humanity, a complaint supported by Human
Rights Watch.
The Special Tribunal says 45 days is enough under Iraqi law.
Many observers, including sources close to the tribunal, expect the trial
to be adjourned after one or two days of hearings so that the 5-judge
panel trying the case can study any defense motions for a delay.
Though grim, Dujail is one of the lesser crimes of which Saddam is
expected ultimately to be charged, but prosecutors are starting with it
because it is relatively clear-cut, strong evidence exists and a
conviction therefore appears more likely.
Since it also involves the deaths of Shi'ites linked to the Dawa Party,
which was banned under Saddam but which is now in the -- Prime Minister
Ibrahim Jaafari is from Dawa -- some see a political motive in bringing
the Dujail case first.
In the coming weeks, other cases against Saddam and his associates are
expected to be presented for trial, including his role in ordering the
Anfal campaigns against the Kurds in northern Iraq in the 1980s, which
included the gassing to death of as many as 5,000 people in the town of
Halabja.
If Saddam and his 7 co-defendants are found guilty in the Dujail case,
they could be put to death.
Under the tribunal's new statutes, which have yet to take effect,
convicted defendants must have their sentences carried out within 30 days
of their last appeal failing.
In theory that means Saddam could be executed before facing trial for
other crimes.
Human Rights Watch called such a provision "draconian", and called for a
re-examination of the capital punishment provision, which international
criminal courts reject as inhumane.
"The mandatory application of the death penalty, without any opportunity
for clemency, directly violates Iraq's human rights obligations," it said.
"Areas of serious concern need to be addressed by the Supreme Iraqi
Criminal Tribunal if it aims to satisfy the promise of delivering justice
rather than vengeance."
(source: Reuters)
AUSTRALIA:
Perth Archbishop condemns new talk of death penalty
Archbishop Barry Hickey of Perth has criticised moves to reintroduce the
death penalty for serious offenders in Western Australia.
The Sunday Times reported that the State Opposition's police spokesman
said that murderers and terrorists should be "executed or flogged by
victims' families".
The spokesman, Rob Johnson, re-ignited the debate over the death penalty
and corporal punishment for criminals, saying the views of West
Australians should be canvassed in a referendum.
But Archbishop Hickey said society should not revert to capital punishment
because it would represent a "serious retreat from our standard of respect
for human life".
Neither Opposition Leader Matt Birney nor Labor Justice Minister John
D'Orazio believed a referendum should be held on the issue.
Mr Birney said he was worried that innocent people would die if capital
punishment was re-introduced in WA, while Mr D'Orazio said present
punishments were adequate.
In 1984, WA was the last state to abolish capital punishment. The last WA
execution was in 1964 when Eric Edgar Cooke was hanged at Fremantle
Prison.
(source: Sunday Times)
